netease_playlist_remove_songsRemove 1–100 songs from a NetEase Cloud Music playlist you own by providing the playlist ID and song IDs. Explicit confirmation is required, and playlist ownership is verified to prevent unauthorized changes.
从当前账号拥有的指定歌单移除 1–100 首歌曲；必须明确确认，且会校验歌单归属。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | Yes | 用户已明确确认移除这些歌曲 | |
| songIds | Yes | ||
| playlistId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and non-read-only. The description adds useful behavioral context: explicit user confirmation is required, playlist ownership is validated, and the operation is scoped to the current account's playlist. It does not contradict the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single compact sentence that front-loads the action and scope, then states the constraints. Every part adds necessary information and there is no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what is removed, the target playlist, the quantity limit, the confirmation requirement, and the ownership check. An agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low (33%), but the description maps to all three parameters: playlistId ('specified playlist'), songIds ('1–100 songs'), and confirm ('must explicitly confirm'). It also adds the ownership-verification behavior for playlistId, going beyond the bare schema patterns.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('移除' / remove), the resource ('songs from a specified playlist owned by the current account'), and the 1–100 count limit. This makes it immediately distinguishable from sibling tools such as add_songs or get_songs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear context: use this when removing songs from an owned playlist, and it highlights the ownership and confirmation preconditions. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.